"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"John Figliozzi" wrote in message
...

The Fairness Doctrine worked well for decades in that it held stations
to the one of the responsibilities required of them under the terms of
their licenses--to air alternative points of view. It gave alternative
points of view a right to time on the public airwaves, something sorely
lacking today. In fact, it's been an ever increasing spiral down the
tubes since the FD was repealed. What passes for public discourse on
the airwaves today--even with the expanding universe of outlets--is a
travesty. And you and I have no right to respond in kind. The FD kept
agendas from spinning out of control and kept most discourse civil and
centered.

As you must know, Frank, newspapers do not require a license to operate
and the Communications Act does not designate them as a public
resource.

Let's imagine most newspapers were controlled by one sydicate. Would we be
better off if they were licensed? Justifications could be manufactured.
They use paper from trees grown on public land. They are transported on
public roads. Would newspapers serve us better if we gave the government
the right to change their ownership or shut them down?

This is a straw man. Newspapers aren't controlled by one syndicate. Have never been
(although USA Today comes close, if they had no other local competition) and probably
never will. So your argument breaks down around your presumption.

And I still think these are reasonably good questions:

How would the new fairness doctrine keep the political partisans and kooks
from harassing media stations with nusiance complaints? Who would define
what a nuisance complaint is?

"Responsible" spokespersons were, in the past, either sober citizens (and some maybe
not so sober) and representatives of community organisations, when I worked in radio.
The management would, in the interests of diversity, bring in the occasional citizen
who would espouse a view quite contrary to the company's. In any event, management
was capable of keeping the occasional raving lunatic off the air...unless the raving
lunatic succeeded in being entertaining enough that management would let him on, if
only to embarrass him.

And public files are thick with nuisance complaints. Why would you think that a
broadcaster should be immune to them? No need to restrict. Bring 'em on.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not
living in a free society.
Kim Campbell - ex-Prime Minister of Canada - 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-